hat would you do? It looks like a hit list, doesn't it? It looks like the list of people that you should go after. You should troll harder. You know, you try to make their life uncomfortable because these are the bad people.

I believe I just got put on a bad people list. Because what would be the point of making a list of people who are most influential on a topic you don't like? What would be the other reason for the list? Tell me what would be the other purpose of the list other than to target me personally for some kind of payback or destruction or minimization? Am I right? There's no other purpose. I don't believe there's even an alleged other purpose. I don't believe there's a cover story. I don't believe anybody's saying anything else but here's a list of people who should be disavowed or targeted or something. So I'm on the list now.

But you know if there's one person you don't want to put on the list, like who would it be? Who would be the person that you would least want to piss off in the whole world? Who would you least want to piss off in the whole world? No, not me. Tony Robbins. Tony Robbins. Not me. No I don't know. Maybe Tony Robbins is above anything like revenge because I've never seen anything like that that would suggest he's vengeful. But you wouldn't want to make somebody angry if you thought they controlled the simulation. Now the people who do control the simulation, if there's a simulation and if somebody can control it, they would look exactly like me. But that doesn't mean I do. They would just look exactly like my life. So just think about that.

Apparently Russia is handling all the sanctions well and doing fine. Okay, now is the Russia-Ukraine thing the best example of two movies on one screen that you've ever seen? I mean I guess Trump was the most classic example. But we have a situation in which people like me will claim we were right by saying that Russia did not take over Ukraine. So but on the other hand Russia won the war. So it's like two opposites at the same time. Russia tried to attack and conquer Ukraine and I believe they at least, I think they at least wanted it and maybe they thought they had a shot at it. So I think what they did is they probably tried to take the whole country and maybe still will try. Maybe they're still trying. But quite reasonably adjusted their tactics when it was time to do that, consolidated their control over the most valuable parts and then presumably will just keep picking on Ukraine forever and try to get the whole thing.

But people like me can say hey I was right because Ukraine defended itself better than the experts said they would. But then the experts are going to say well we told you Russia could do anything they wanted and what they wanted to do was get this valuable part and they got it. So Russia won. And if they want the rest of it, well they can pick on that later and they'll probably get that too. So is everybody right? Everybody's right. Scott the mind reader of Putin. You know the thing with Putin is you don't have to read his mind because he said publicly pretty clearly that Ukraine should be in Russia's control and blah blah blah, NATO is a risk, blah blah. So I don't think that's a mind-reading example. But I always take seriously those criticisms because it's easy to fall into the mind-reading thing.

Here's a shocking statistic. That 85% of children, teens with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. And over 70% of all adolescent patients in drug and alcohol treatment originate from homes without fathers. Therefore the problem is not enough fathers. Yes or no? Connect these dots. This will be your data analysis test. If we know that 85% of children and teens with behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes, therefore the fatherless part is the reason, right? What would be something else in common that fatherless homes have? What would be some other big variable? A lack of money. What can you name something where poor people are doing better? I mean there's probably something but in what category do poor people do better? Do they have better health? No. Do they have better happiness? I don't think so. The last thing you would expect is that the poorer you are, the healthier your mental health would be. So are we not talking about, we're talking about fathers but it's really a poverty problem.

Now you might say to yourself if the father stayed that would solve the poverty problem, would it? Are these fathers the fathers with good jobs who the only thing wrong with them is that they didn't stay? No I don't think the only thing wrong with the fathers is they didn't stay. They probably would be an economic drag as much as an economic benefit. So I'm not sure that saying fatherlessness is the problem, that feels like the outcome of the problem.

Do you want to give me another? Do you want to hear the most provocative hypothesis of what the real problem is? Do you want to see me get banned from all social media and lose 15% of my followers in the next 60 seconds? I'm just going to throw out a hypothesis. What if the problem is mothers? I'm not saying it is. I think it's curiously missing from the conversation. Because remember it's a bunch of things we don't understand. So if it's a thing we don't understand with a bunch of variables in it, why can't it be the mothers? If the father doesn't stay, what's one possibility for that? What is one reason that the father wouldn't stay? Name a reason. Well one is that the father's a piece of crap, right? That's what you go to immediately. The father's a deadbeat piece of crap, irresponsible, possibly a rapist. That's what you go to. Why? Because men are awful and women are awesome. Those are the rules. Those are the rules. I'm sorry, Amber Heard an exception. But the rules are the men are trash and women are goddesses and queens. Queens and goddesses. Those two categories. You can only be two things if you're a woman: either a queen or a goddess. A princess, three things. But men are criminals and dirt and rapists and murderers. They're awful. And so if you see a situation where there are two variables involved, one is the mother who is the one who spends most of the time with the child that becomes ruined. So the mother is the one who spends all the time with the child who gets ruined. And the fault of this process not working, the mother spending all of the time raising the child that gets ruined, the reason that the child is ruined by the mother who spends all the time with the child is the father who's not there. So the person who's not there is the one who ruined the child, not the person who's there. No, not the person who's there.

Let me do a little mental experiment for you. Let's imagine a world in which the mothers were doing the leaving and the fathers were always left with children. All right, it's an imaginary world. In the imaginary world where the women all left and the fathers were left to raise the kids and then those kids turned out to be drug addicts and behavioral problem kids, would the analysis be that the problem was the mother left? Or would the analysis be I think the one who's there raising the kid is the one ruining them. And no wonder the mother left because that father couldn't even raise a kid. So how much of a father could he be? So obviously it's the father who's a piece of trash, garbage, who is at least there at the home but they're ruining that kid because they're the one raising it and the kid turned out bad.

Now is that a fair analysis? That the person who raises the kid is mostly to blame if the kid turns out wrong? Or is it the person who wasn't there? Is that who you normally think in a normal situation? Would you blame the person who wasn't there or would you blame the person who was there? And how come you've never asked that question? How come you just automatically accept the interpretation that men are pieces of shit and they cause the problem even when they're not there, even when they're not there?

So I think that fatherlessness is something that needs to be focused on and understood and we need to find some way to help the kids. But I don't know if the situation is so simple as the conservative view that it's fatherlessness. I think there's at least an equal possibility that the mothers are all broken and one of the reasons that the father didn't stay is that the mother is broken and he just couldn't put up with it. So why is it always the father's fault? Now I'm not saying the fathers should be off the hook. Nothing like that. I'm just saying that the way we analyze this is so obviously not rational then why would we expect that we could figure out how to solve it? If we're not looking at it in a rational way why would you expect anybody could solve it? You'd have to start with understanding it at the very least. And if you're not willing to say the truth that whatever makes these people poor and whatever makes this father leave or whatever makes the mother not have a partner, maybe it's them. Maybe it's them. All right, maybe the people are both the mother and the father. Maybe poverty is just always bad. How about poverty is always bad?

You know I think conservatives, honestly I think you're destroying the topic because when you simplify it to fatherlessness, first of all there's I just don't think there's enough support for that opinion even though the statistics are highly correlated. That's just too simplified. There's just too many other things that are correlated. So somebody says you're off on this. Yeah I'll look for some pushback. By the way if it turns out that the statistics just say yeah it really is the guy's fault pretty much every time, I could be persuaded. I'm easily persuaded on this point by the way. Easily persuaded. But there is no argument against what I just said. The automatic assumption that men are trash is what is driving the entire frame of the debate. And if you're in the wrong frame you're not going to find a solution.

So what's the solution? How about fix the mothers? How about that? Imagine if every single mother who had a kid started looking like a good prospect. Suppose instead of saying oh shoot this one's got a kid, I don't want to marry that because I'm going to be responsible for somebody else's kid, don't want to be a stepdad. You know what? What if you fix the mothers so that men want to stay with them? Oh yeah, look what I just did. What if you fixed the mothers so the men wanted to stay? But I will give you this. You would have to also train the mothers not to have sex with the wrong guys. Can I give you that? Because most guys are the wrong guys. Most of the men are defective too. Like I'm not, don't, if you think I'm letting men off the hook that's not what's happening here. I'm not letting anybody off the hook. I'm just saying that everybody's on the hook, right, including me. I didn't have any biological kids. We're sort